APGAR familiar
6. Conclusiones y Recomendaciones:
Certain vulnerable groups require a strategic focus for supports for inclusive systems in and around schools38. The groups examined in this section are: migrants and Roma, students experiencing poverty, victims of bullying, and students with special educational needs.
6.1. Supporting Migrants and Roma
It is vital not to construct ethnic minorities and migrants in deficit terms. Any focus on their distinct needs in a given national and local educational system requires an approach that builds on their strengths and which celebrates diversity. It is also important to note that not all migrants identify with
their original ethnic background (Dogra et al., 2012). Moreover, multiracial individuals may be mistakenly perceived as monoracial members of their minority groups (Ho et al., 2011)39.
In acccord with the key principles of equality of esteem and building on strengths, a recommendation of Heckmann’s (2008) NESSE report for the Commission is to integrate elements and symbols of the cultures of origin into school life, the curriculum, textbooks, and other school material. Heckmann (2008) recommends that this be done in consultation with representatives of the new communities. Yet much work needs to be done to make this a reality. Moreover, it is evident from community based lifelong learning centres and social support centres in Nantes, Munich, Usti and the Hague (Downes, 2015), that the cultural symbols of different ethnic groups and migrants are not expressed or displayed in these centres or community spaces. Concern about the needs of migrants and Roma pervades the Council Recommendation 201140. The Council Conclusions (2015, p. 5), mark ‘migrant backgrounds (including newly arrived migrants and foreign-born children)’. The Council Recommendations (2011, annex p. 4) refer to ‘supporting children with a different mother tongue to improve their proficiency in the language of instruction and, where appropriate, in the mother tongue, as well as supporting teachers to teach children with different levels of linguistic competence’41.
The TWG (2013, p. 17) report seeks ‘Better integration of newly arrived migrant children: Children from newly arrived migrant families need targeted support to acquire the language of tuition and to catch up with the curriculum. Inclusive learning environments can support their integration and increase their educational success…’. Such targeted support needs to include,
Specific support for non-native speakers: Learners whose native language is not the language of instruction should receive additional and appropriate support according to their needs, preferably outside school time and avoiding any type of separation or segregation practices. The competences and proficiency in their native language should be appreciated and used as a resource for the whole class (ET2020 School Policy Working Group document 2015, p. 12).
The Commission Staff Working Paper (2011, p. 26) observes that ‘A number of countries have successfully introduced school mediators or teaching assistants who often provide the missing link between the school and the parents. This is a successful approach particularly for communities with a distrust of school authorities, or for parents who do not speak the language of instruction’. The Council Recommendations (2011, annex p. 7) endorse ‘mediators from the local community who are able to support communication and to reduce distrust’. The Commission Recommendation (2013, p. 7) observes the need to ‘deploy special cultural mediators and role models to facilitate the integration of
39 See also May et al., 2004 on hybridity of identities. As Dale’s NESSE report for the Commission (2010, p. 28) highlights, ‘Migrant populations are diverse and they present different challenges in terms of whether they are: racially, ethnically and culturally distinct from the indigenous population and subject to forms of discrimination; high/low skilled and bringing particular kinds of expectations of the host community; rich or poor in the social/cultural capital which is meaningful in the new context; newly arrived with complex language and cultural needs; second and third generation migrants with established patterns of need and aspiration; illegal migrants with complex forms of insecurity and instability; refugees and Asylum seekers, potentially bearing complex health and welfare needs; citizens from former colonies with a history of social and cultural engagement with their new context’.
40 They are explicitly referred to on p. 4 & 6 of the Council Recommendation 2011. In 2014, 40.1% of adults born in a country outside the EU-28 and 24.8% of those born in a different EU-28 country than the reporting one were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. For native citizens, however, only 22.5% of the population was at this risk (Eurostat 2016).
41 The Council Conclusions (2015, p. 11) observe the need for ‘additional support for learners whose native language(s) is/are not the language(s) of instruction’.
Roma and children with an immigrant background’. Roma mediators in schools who are from the Roma community are an example from Sofia municipality of a commitment to representation and inclusion of the Roma minority42. The PREVENT Project Policy Recommendations report raised this principle as being largely lacking across 10 municipalities. This principle of representativeness regarding the need to employ members of those groups being targeted for intervention in order to ensure cultural affinity, credibility and competence of the project is given insufficient recognition generally across municipalities (Downes, 2014a). A notable exception and leading initiative in this area is that of the Roma mediators, in the Sofia Schools of inclusion in Bulgaria43.
As an implicit dimension of the representation and participation principle for marginalised groups, the Council Recommendations 2011 annex (p.7) refers to the importance of ‘Networking with… other actors outside school, such as local community services, organisations representing migrants or minorities’. However, much work needs to be done in practice at local level to make this a reality. As noted in a report across 9 European cities, the lack of substantive representation of ethnic minorities and migrants, including NGOs representing them, on a number of the Local Support Groups for their Local Action Plans for parental involvement for early school leaving is a serious concern, (Downes, 2015). It impinges upon key principles of representation, collaboration and dialogue. This requires systemic change.
The EU Commission’s TWG (2013, p. 19) report highlights that ‘The administrative process for enrolling newly arrived migrant children needs to be timely and adapted to the specific situation of their families. Curcic et al. (2014, p. 261) observe that ‘many Roma parents do not have the means to obtain and submit the array of legal documents necessary to navigate the system’. Other forms of support should also be available, especially for newly arrived migrants, either in the school or outside, in cooperation with local agencies and services (ET2020 School Policy Working Group document 2015. p.12). The issue of system fragmentation of multiple, diffuse services and territories was also raised in the PREVENT project reports across 10 European city municipalities44 (Downes, 2014a, 2015), where a need was identified for clarity of responsibility to ensure that families and young people do not fall through the gaps in support services, since many vulnerable populations may not be in a position to access the supports available to them. It is key that there is a lead agency who can guide them through the range of service options available in their municipality, to ensure that the educational and more holistic needs of children and young people from ethnic minorities and migrant families are being met. There needs to be a clear path of responsibility to provide such support, and this path must also be clearly communicated to migrants and ethnic minorities. A number of responses from municipalities did not specify a concrete lead agency that coordinates and builds bridges to other agencies which support parents and children as migrants and ethnic minorities (Downes, 2015).
42 Garaz (2014) contrasts the variance in education levels between Roma minorities in different European countries in comparison with the general population. Students whose parents have completed at least lower secondary education reaches 79% in Bulgaria for the general population compared with 64% for Roma; it is 87% compared with 56% in the Czech Republic. In other words, the 31% difference between Roma and the general population whose parents have completed at least lower secondary education in the Czech Republic is double the 15% difference in Bulgaria.
43 This pilot municipal model aims for the inclusion of Roma families in general and, specifically, for an increase in preschool enrolment of Roma children. Training of Roma mediators, training of pedagogical staff and training of institutional experts consists of 20 persons across 3 days training in ‘Family Involvement’, ‘Effective models for interaction, awareness raising and multilateral partnership’, ‘Conflict management’, and ‘Communication with institutions’.
44 Antwerp (Belgium-Flanders), Gijon (Spain), The Hague (Netherlands), Munich (Germany), Nantes (France), Sofia (Bulgaria), Stockholm (Sweden), Tallinn(Estonia), Usti (Czech Republic), Catania (Sicily).
6.2. Overcoming Poverty-Related Barriers to Education
Monetary poverty is the most widespread form of poverty in Europe with 17.2% of EU citizens affected in 2014. Next is severe material deprivation and very low work intensity, affecting 9% and 11.2% of EU citizens respectively (Eurostat, 2016). Overall, 9.5% of the working EU population was at risk of poverty in 2014 (Eurostat, 2016). Almost 50% of all single parents were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2014. This was double the average and higher than for any other household type (Eurostat, 2016). Council Recommendations (2011) annex p.5 also recognises teenage pregnancy as an issue for early school leaving45.
More than 30% of young people aged 18 to 24, and 27.8% of children aged less than 18, were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2014. At 17.8%, this rate was considerably lower among the elderly aged 65 or over (Eurostat, 2016). This is related to the issue of hunger in school amongst children and young people due to poverty-related factors, which can affect their concentration, performance, memory, motivation, behaviour, and relations with peers (Downes and Maunsell, 2007). It is neglected in EU documents for early school leaving prevention, arguably due to the lack of European wide research on school system supports regarding this issue. The availability of hot food and kitchens in schools is taken for granted in some European countries, and does not exist in others. The Commission Recommendation (2013, p. 8) mentions this issue only indirectly and only for early years: ‘Invest in prevention particularly during early childhood years, by putting in placecomprehensive policies that combine nutrition, health, education and social measures’. Against the backdrop of the economic crisis and a substantial increase in child poverty in a number of countries, this key education and poverty related issue merits much firmer attention at EU level for research and policy; it is included, albeit in a preliminary fashion, within the scope of the current framework of structural indicators for inclusive systems in and around education.
The Commission Staff Working Paper (2011, p. 32) recognises that ‘Policies against ESL need to take account of the financial difficulties that cause many young people to leave school early… Financial incentives can also be conditional, e.g. based on regular school attendance’. The Council Recommendations (2011, annex p. 10) seeks ‘Targeted individual support’ which includes ‘financial’ support.
The Commission Recommendation (2013, pp. 1-5) also recognises issues of ‘housing’, ‘street children’ and interventions for homelessness: ‘Support families and children at risk of homelessness by avoiding evictions, unnecessary moves, separation from families as well as providing temporary shelter and long-term housing solutions’. However, more attention is needed on the educational impact of homelessness and temporary housing, which is often a large distance away from the school location. EU-28 citizens in rural areas were on average more likely to live in poverty or social exclusion than those living in urban areas (27.2 % compared with 24.3 %) in 2014 (Eurostat 2016). This is an important context in which to place the Commission Staff Working Paper’s (2011, p. 9) recognition that, ‘In some
45 To get a more detailed picture on why adolescents leave school early, Dupere et al. (2014) propose a complex model, which would take into account not only individual and system characteristics, such as developmental trajectories, coping, health, identity, family, school, community support and others, but also the importance of turning points. Teen parenting, academic failure, mobility, and financial hardship all may be turning points profoundly affecting the life course of an individual and inducting stress, which could lead to dropping out. Moreover, stressors often come in bundles; for example teen parenting may also induce financial hardship or academic failure.
Member States ESL is a predominantly rural phenomenon, has high incidence in remote areas and can be linked to insufficient access to education’. Transport barriers to attending school was also noted in a number of the NESET country specific reports (2013-14), especially in rural contexts of poverty. A number of these reports also referred to schemes to aid children in need by funding textbooks and other learning resources, while the issue of teenage pregnancy and early school leaving was also raised.
6.3. Supporting Students with Special Educational Needs
In their review of the international literature on bullying victimisation amongst children with SEND (they are primarily studies from Europe – Ireland, Scandinavia, and UK – and North America) McLaughlin et al. (2010) found that children with SEND faced increased risk of victimisation in both mainstream and special settings, ranging from 80% for children with learning disabilities, 70% for children with autism, to 40% for children with speech and language difficulties; some studies indicated that students with mild or hidden disabilities may be at even more risk. Various reviews of the literature in the US (e.g. Rose et al., 2011; Rose et al., 2009) and the UK (McLaughlin et al., 2010) have shown that bullying victimisation and perpetration are over-represented in SEND, suggesting that children and young people with SEND are not only more likely to be victimised but also more likely to bully, relative to their peers.
Transition is an issue related to bullying but also poses wider difficulties for students with SEND who may be in particular need of structured environments (Maunsell et al., 2007). The TWG (2013, p. 17) seeks,
Smooth transition between different levels of education: Measures to facilitate the process of adaption should start from transition from home to the world of education. Transition from primary to lower-secondary education and from lower to upper secondary should be facilitated. Closer cooperation between schools, induction programmes and targeted support for children facing difficulties in adapting to the new school environment can avoid alienation as a result of difficult transition experiences.
These are issues for schools and preservice teacher education to address.
Students with special educational needs are identified as a group at increased risk of early school leaving in the Council Recommendation (2011, p.6). The Council Recommendations (2011, annex p. 7) endorse, ‘Mentoring supports [for] individual pupils to overcome specific academic, social or personal difficulties. Either in one-to-one approaches (mentoring) or in small groups (tutoring), pupils receive targeted assistance, often provided by education staff by community members or by their peers’. The TWG report (2013, pp. 18-19) observes that
Pupils with learning difficulties/disabilities or those who face personal, social or emotional challenges often have too little contact with education staff or other adults to support them. They need easy access to teachers and other professionals supporting their educational and personal development. They also need guidance and mentoring together with cultural and extra-curricular activities to broaden their learning opportunities46.
46 Carpentieri et al.’s (2011) major international review of family literacy highlights the need to address dyslexia, as well as a relative neglect of this issue in Europe: ‘Although dyslexia runs in families (van Otterloo et al, 2009), very little of the European primary research we found investigated family literacy interventions targeted at children who were dyslexic or who were at
As the UNESCO (2016, p. 36) report recognises, ‘inclusion is about the development of mainstream schools, rather than the reorganization of special schooling’. It also raises the concern that:
The category ‘special educational needs’ can become a repository for various groups who suffer discrimination in society, such as those from minority backgrounds. In this way, special education can be a way of hiding discrimination against some groups of students behind an apparently benign label, thus, justifying their low attainments and, therefore, their need for separate educational arrangements (p. 38).
The UNESCO report develops the implications of this for preservice education, observing that if teachers are to be trained in inclusive approaches, then their training programmes must also be organized along inclusive lines: ‘The rigid separation between mainstream education and special education programmes has to be replaced by more integrated programmes or more flexible pathways through programmes’ (p. 41).